Switching to RAW...any suggestions?

[SrisonS]

Since you're going on a cruise, I'll assume you're not gonna be using the internet much; and probably not at all. So that would make no need for instant online sharing. And whatever RAW software you can download on your Netbook will give you the ability to look at your pictures, so no need for jpegs there either.

So I'd agree with Photo_chick, if you don't think you'll need to do anything with the pictures right away. And like she mentioned, even basic software should be able to do batch processing; so no need to put in a lot of work... unless of course you want to.

My suggestion would be this:
- Use both slots.... one as the main, and the other as overflow.
- Backup both of those cards each night to your Netbook, and put in a new set of cards for the next day; but try to still keep those pictures on the card.
- Keep repeating Step 2. During this rotation, you might go back to using the first set, but that'll be alright.

The main idea is to have your pics nicely spread out over different cards, in case any of them gets lost. And don't delete the pictures from the cards unless you run out of room. Sure, they're backed up to your Netbook, but you don't wanna put all your eggs in one basket. If you can help it, wait until you get home and everything is placed in your normal system of things, before you start deleting anything.

And as far as RAW processing; as your skills grow over time, the more you'll be accustomed to making the most of those RAW files. You might not see anything special about it at first, but you'll eventually get to the point where you revisit old shots, to really put your skills and knowledge to the test. And you'll be glad that you shot in RAW to begin with.

 

[TXFL]

Don't forget to download the NEF codec for windows, but I doubt you want to look at RAW images on a netbook, this is where JPGs come in handy. Enjoy your trip

 

[TC09]

OK now another question------especially for the D7000 users;

when looking at the options for RAW and JPEG I see:

1. RAW + JPEG fine
2. RAW + JPEG normal
3. RAW + JPEG basic


if I choose 1,2 or 3 I can also choose what size image, Large, Medium or small for the JPEG. (I really have never shot is basic and small so I don't think that should even be part of my question, or should it?)

What size should the JPEG be, Large or Medium? and should I use fine or normal?
I'm going to have card 2 be the card for the JPEG (2GB) and card 1 be the RAW(8GB).

With the JPEG set to fine and large I will get about 135 shots.
With the JPEG set to normal and large I will get about 269 shots
With JPEG set to fine and medium I will get about 239 shots
With JPEG set to normal and medium I will get about 398 shots

BUT NOW....if I take the 2GB card out of slot 2 and change the settings to just RAW it says I will get 398 shots!!! I get the same results, 398 shots, if I change the card 2 slot to be a overflow.
WHAT am I not understanding?
I don't understand.....

The indicator on the LCD will only show the number of shots remaining on the card in Slot 1, if the camera is set to use Slot 2 as Overflow. When the first card is full, it'll show the remaining shots for the card in Slot 2.

If it's set as Backup, the indicator will display the remaining shots of the card with the least amount of space.

If you need the space (I'm sure you'll be taking lots of pictures ), I would do what SrisonS suggested about backing up the files to your netbook each night... or even every chance you get. This way, you can set the card in Slot 2 to be Overflow. If you want, and if you have one, bring along an external/portable hard drive to backup files to that too. Then you'll have 3 places that the files are backed up to: SD cards, netbook and portable hard drive. Of course, that's if you don't mind bringing along a little extra hardware.

 

[klmall]

@klmall: there have recently been discounts for LR3 on Amazon. Check to see if they're still going on. And like someone else mentioned, there isn't a big learning curve for Lightroom. Heck, the processing aspects of it are much more straightforward than the organizatonal ones.

Thanks SrisonS! I'll check Amazon out.

Happy Easter and Passover everyone!

 

[photo_chick]

I have to disagree here. I always do RAW plus JPG because then I instantly have a file I can give to the DW so that she can share on FB. When she has to wait for me to post process, she is not a happy camper!

I can see that. I guess because I do all the processing and FB posting it's different for me then.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I've been shooting RAW for a couple of years now but am in the process of going back to shooting straight JPEGs - I'm pretty sure. (Still have to do a few more shoots to make sure I'm getting good images and it's strictly a processing issue - if anyone would like to address this I'd appreciate it.)

I'm doing this for several reasons. First, my upgrade a year ago got me a camera that has good JPEG images straight from the camera, so I'd like to take advantage of that. Second, I have been doing little to almost no post processing with my RAW images lately. (Thank you, God! Finally! ) Third, the sheer amount and size of the RAW files I have is freaking my DH out, lol. Fourth, I have a ton of pictures from the past couple of years I haven't even processed yet, which seems silly. Fifth, the time I've put into processing is time I no longer have. And finally, the truth is, I never really enjoyed it. I mean, sure, I like being able to improve an image. But I don't like being dependent on it, if that makes sense.

I think the whole photography thing is a process (pun intended ). We all have to see what works best for us personally and go that route ultimately. I think that shooting RAW and learning how to process those images did help me learn how best to get those shots right in camera, which was really always my goal. While I love seeing some of the things that *can* be done in pp, I'm not sure it will ever be for me, and that's ok. I did get LR for XMas and I haven't even watched the tutorial yet let alone use it. I will eventually, but I'm not sure how or if it will change anything for me, other than maybe storage and hopefully ease of basic editing and watermarking.

If I am off base on any of this stuff, please let me know. I don't think I'll ever be done learning.

 

[zackiedawg]

Welcome, Pea! I reached that conclusion many years ago, and other than for my professional or hired shoots where I shoot RAW for safety (it's the client's shoot, not mine, so I can't risk a screw up) I stick with JPG exclusively and mighty happily. I work very diligently to get my cameras set up to deliver just the output I like (tune your JPGs for contrast, color, saturation, and sharpness that suits you), pay close attention to white balance, and take the extra concentration needed to nail exposures at the shot, so what I get out of the camera is exactly what I wanted to get with no processing needed. When it comes down to it, I'm just not having a whole lot of fun processing photos, and having an absolute ball taking photos...so I spend more time doing what I love, and less time doing what I don't. I even tried all of the 'batch processing' RAW solutions that would supposedly make RAW processing take no more time than JPG - but it didn't - just the load times, the batch-running times, the backlog of photos would start to build like you mentioned. For me, nothing is as pleasureful as taking hundreds or thousands of photos, getting home, plugging in the card for about 2 minutes and loading all photos to my computer...and start the slideshow. That's it - nothing more needed - photos are ready to go. And as long as you make the effort to pre-tune the camera and get the exposures right, nothing needs correction or alteration.

RAW definitely gives both more latitude to correct, and also can pull ultimately more of nearly any parameter out of a file - it has that much more information for color, and full control over how it is displayed, how noise is removed, how sharpening is applied, etc. So beyond question, it's the more powerful tool. But a well-taken JPG can be good enough to sell large prints, publish in national magazines, and anyone viewing the print wouldn't be able to tell if it was a JPG or RAW when shot. So it does come down to personal preference. Neither method is 'wrong' or 'right' - just different ways to shoot that each have their own advantages and disadvantages. Like everything else in the world - there's compromise no matter which way you go - so as long as you're happy and enjoying yourself, you're doing the right thing.

 

[GrillMouster]

IMO shooting RAW plus jpeg is redundant, wastes memory card space and takes more time to write to the card. It's like wearing socks with sandals.. commit to one or the other. You're shooting RAW to process them into jpegs yourself. If you're worried about how they'll look, most RAW processing software does have presets to make getting started easier.

I respect others' choices, but personally, my reasons for shooting RAW rather than RAW + jpg are the same ones that photo_chick outlined above. For those who want quick & easy jpgs for posting to FB, etc., the camera manufacturer's proprietary RAW processing software can quickly spit out jpgs that are identical to what would have come out of the camera. You don't have to make any adjustments at all, just "Select All", then "Export jpg", and you have all the jpgs for immediate upload without having wasted space on the memory card.

Alternately, some cameras allow you to create jpgs from RAW files in-camera. This way, rather than having duplicate jpgs of all your RAW files, you can go through the image and select the few images you want in jpg for immediate posting to FB (or wherever).

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Welcome, Pea! I reached that conclusion many years ago, and other than for my professional or hired shoots where I shoot RAW for safety (it's the client's shoot, not mine, so I can't risk a screw up) I stick with JPG exclusively and mighty happily. I work very diligently to get my cameras set up to deliver just the output I like (tune your JPGs for contrast, color, saturation, and sharpness that suits you), pay close attention to white balance, and take the extra concentration needed to nail exposures at the shot, so what I get out of the camera is exactly what I wanted to get with no processing needed. When it comes down to it, I'm just not having a whole lot of fun processing photos, and having an absolute ball taking photos...so I spend more time doing what I love, and less time doing what I don't. I even tried all of the 'batch processing' RAW solutions that would supposedly make RAW processing take no more time than JPG - but it didn't - just the load times, the batch-running times, the backlog of photos would start to build like you mentioned. For me, nothing is as pleasureful as taking hundreds or thousands of photos, getting home, plugging in the card for about 2 minutes and loading all photos to my computer...and start the slideshow. That's it - nothing more needed - photos are ready to go. And as long as you make the effort to pre-tune the camera and get the exposures right, nothing needs correction or alteration.

RAW definitely gives both more latitude to correct, and also can pull ultimately more of nearly any parameter out of a file - it has that much more information for color, and full control over how it is displayed, how noise is removed, how sharpening is applied, etc. So beyond question, it's the more powerful tool. But a well-taken JPG can be good enough to sell large prints, publish in national magazines, and anyone viewing the print wouldn't be able to tell if it was a JPG or RAW when shot. So it does come down to personal preference. Neither method is 'wrong' or 'right' - just different ways to shoot that each have their own advantages and disadvantages. Like everything else in the world - there's compromise no matter which way you go - so as long as you're happy and enjoying yourself, you're doing the right thing.

Thanks for confirming I'm not completely off base!

 

[denise]

wow I have so much to think about now.
I really enjoy learning the post processing techniques in PS and LR. I probably spend too much time goofing off on this but it's fun.

I downloaded the Nikon ViewNX2 software to my netbook so we can view the photos. I have an external backup and will take that too. I'm covered on backup each night. Thanks for the suggestions everyone.

I am thinking I should go to Costco and buy an couple more 8GB cards. They have a 2 pak for around $49 I think..not sure of the price. They usually have a coupon for $10 off but not now...darn.
I just don't want to run out of cards. I have 4 of the 8GB and 4 of the 2gb, I think. Plus I have to remember my DD will be shooting with my old Nikon and she may need cards....
It's not like our cruise is going anywhere that wouldn't have cards, it's the Repo from LA to Vancouver, I just want to be prepared.

Again thanks for all the input...I appreciate everyone's thoughts and ideas.
denise

 

[ukcatfan]

I have to disagree here. I always do RAW plus JPG because then I instantly have a file I can give to the DW so that she can share on FB. When she has to wait for me to post process, she is not a happy camper!

Does it slow you down when taking pictures?
I see your point too....
but what settings would you use for the JPEG?

It is not any slower, but I get about one less shot in my burst. If that is going to be important, I switch to just RAW.

 

[manning]

Here's some interesting views

http://www.tlc-systems.com/artzen2-0123.htm

http://www.dailyphotographytips.net/comparison/raw-vs-jpeg-picture-format/

There isn't any right answer.